2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

A. On January 31, 1984, the Defendant constructed a 1st underground floor and a hospital of 5th floor (the total floor area of 4,304.76 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) on the ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”)’s ownership of ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the network”), and used the instant building as a hospital building. However, on January 6, 2004, the Defendant did not report the rental income of the instant land to the Plaintiff○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) on the global income tax, by applying the provision, which is an unfair calculation method, the amount of KRW 479-13 large 2,319,230,506,5230, 198, 2075, 306, 2057, 2005, 2015.

B. On March 15, 2004, the deceased filed an objection, and the defendant ex officio on April 27, 2004, the total income tax for the year 1999 was 78,737,239 won, the total income tax for the year 2001 was 39,249,515 won, and the total income tax for the year 2002 was corrected to 29,85,085 won and underground (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of global income tax revised").

C. The amount of income from the lease income of the building of this case estimated by the Defendant while rendering the instant disposition is KRW 273,97,597, KRW 191,674,797, KRW 1999, KRW 180,156,696, KRW 136,142,024, and KRW 144,680,729, KRW 20029.

D. The deceased missioned on May 22, 2004, and the plaintiffs, their children, inherited 1/6 each of the deceased's property.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 9

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The building of this case is owned by the deceased. On the premise that the defendant is owned by the plaintiff ○○○, allowing the deceased to use it to the plaintiff ○○○○○, it is illegal to regard it as an unfair transaction with a person with a special relationship, and thus, the disposition of

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) After constructing the instant building, the Deceased had the ownership of the instant building owned by the Plaintiff ○○○, and had the said Plaintiff use the building as rent five million won per month without setting the rental period, and the said Plaintiff operated the instant building as the hospital.

(2) Since the deceased did not receive a rent after October 2001 from the plaintiff ○○○, on December 27, 2001, the deceased demanded the above plaintiff to pay 15 million won for the rent of three months from October 7, 2001 to December 7, 2002, and to enter into a new lease contract with a deposit deposit of 20 million won and 20 million won for the rent of rent of the above plaintiff. The deceased notified that the lease contract for the building of this case is terminated if the above plaintiff did not implement the lease contract.

(3) However, the above Plaintiff did not pay KRW 15 million to the Deceased, and did not conclude a new lease contract, and continued to occupy the instant building until February 24, 2005 and operated the hospital at a certain time, and closed on February 25, 2005.

(4) Meanwhile, on July 8, 2002, the deceased filed a lawsuit with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ownership verification of the share of 5/6 shares of the instant building, cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Plaintiff○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the title order of the instant building and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. As a result, the deceased died and the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ received a partial favorable judgment on December 3, 2004. In the appellate case, the Seoul ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ rendered a title trust with the Plaintiff○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on May 11, 2006, the judgment became final and conclusive to the remainder of the Plaintiffs by ordering the cancellation registration procedure of ownership preservation of the ownership of the instant building to the remainder.

(5) According to the above appellate case, the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant building, including the rent of the instant land as of January 1, 202, is KRW 31,283,600 per month (the rent of the instant building + KRW 11,551,100 per month + the rent of KRW 19,732,50 for the instant land).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 12-1, 2, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

The disposition of this case is based on the deceased's use of the land of this case or the building of this case owned by the deceased without compensation or at low prices to the plaintiff ○○○○. Accordingly, the deceased, the owner of the land of this case and the building of this case, had the plaintiff ○○○, who is the deceased, use the building of this case on the land of this case more considerably than normal rent (the rent of the building of this case is defined as the difference of the land of this case). As seen above, it is recognized that the deceased provided the plaintiff ○○ with other assets free of charge or at low interest under Article 98 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, it constitutes "the act that the plaintiff ○○ in a special relationship under Article 98 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act provides the "the tax burden on the corresponding income of Article 41 of the Income Tax Act was unjustly reduced." Thus, it is subject to unfair calculation.

In addition, as recognized earlier, in light of the fact that the rental income of the deceased estimated by the defendant while disposing of the instant case is considerably low in light of the rent equivalent on or around January 2002 as seen earlier, the estimated rental income shall be deemed to be within the reasonable rental income scope, and thus, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality in the tax amount calculated based on the estimated rental income.

Therefore, it is lawful that the Defendant reported the lease of the instant building to the deceased as a wrongful calculation father, and the instant disposition was made.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Income Tax Act

Article 41 (Calculation by Wrongful Acts)

(1) If it is deemed that any act or computation of a resident having any real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income or forest income has reduced unreasonably the tax burden on such income through transactions with the resident concerned, the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may calculate the income amount in the current year, regardless of the act or calculation of the resident concerned. < Amended by Act

(2) The scope of the persons in special relationship under paragraph (1) and other necessary matters concerning the wrongful calculation shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

Article 98 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Acts)

(1) The term “a person having a special relation” under Articles 41 and 101 of the Act means one of the following persons:

1. Relatives of the relevant resident;

(2) The term “if it is deemed that he unfairly reduces the tax burden” used in Article 41 of the Act means the time falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

2. Where money and other assets or services are provided to the related parties with no compensation or at a low interest rate, etc.: Provided, That the case where a lineal ascendant or descendant has used a house without compensation, and his lineal ascendant or descendant has actually resided in the relevant house shall be excluded;